FACTS:
For years, Ohio law has burdened people seeking an abortion with a set of onerous, medically unnecessary, and sometimes harmful prerequisites to obtaining that abortion. Specifically, at least 24-hours before their abortion procedure patients must receive in-person counseling that includes state-mandated information about their pregnancy, the health impacts of abortion, and alternatives like adoption. Although the law only requires 24 hours to elapse between this in-person counseling appointment and the procedure, in practice the delay is often much longer.
People seeking abortions often travel hundreds of miles to find care, need to pay for lodging, childcare, and take extra time off work. The counseling requirement means they must make these arrangements twice, a needless and costly burden. And the required delay for receiving time-sensitive medical care has no medical benefit for patients. It serves only to push them later into their pregnancies, increasing the risk of harm to their health and well-being.
Abortion providers in Ohio have long watched their patients be harmed by these requirements, unable to deviate from the process or risk their medical licenses and severe civil penalties.
LEGAL THEORY:
This set of restrictions violates the new constitutional amendment which forbids the state from directly or indirectly burdening, penalizing, prohibiting, interfering with, or discriminating against an individual’s voluntary exercise of this right or a person or entity that assists an individual exercising this right, unless the State can satisfy the extremely heavy burden of showing that it is using the least restrictive means to advance the individual’s health in accordance with widely accepted and evidence-based standards of care.
STATUS:
On March 29, 2024 abortion provider plaintiffs filed a civil lawsuit against Ohio government officials in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, along with a Motion for Preliminary Injunction blocking the continued enforcement of the restrictive prerequisites. Prosecutor Defendants stipulated on April 18 that they would not defend the lawsuit. On April 24 the parties entered an agreed briefing order and on May 1 state Defendants filed their opposition to the Preliminary Injunction.
On May 2 the Court scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing for August 16. On May 7 Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs filed a Reply in support of Preliminary Injunction on May 10 and opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on May 21. On June 6, parties stipulated that they did not need an evidentiary hearing and that oral argument, if ordered, on the motion to dismiss can be consolidated with the August PI hearing.
